Someone who thinks Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 to retaliate for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing shouldn’t be asserting vestiges of truth.
“Too big to fail” has a meaning in a market economy in which failed businesses are usually allowed to die. This is normally considered a good thing in capitalist economics because it encourages efficiency. A business is too big to fail if letting it do so would cause the economy to collapse. Businesses that are too big to fail create a moral hazard problem, because the people who run these businesses know that the government will bail them out rather than let them collapse.
I know a lot of conservatives believe that the federal government is too big, and that many of the things it does could be handled more efficiently by the private sector. This is a different question than that of being too big to fail. While one could argue that a government can be too big, the concept of being too big to fail just doesn’t apply to governments. This is because even small governments are too big to fail. Governments provide essential services such as police, courts, currency, etc. Without these, the country (and its economy) would collapse. That is, all governments are too big to fail, so saying this about the U.S. government is saying next to nothing.
No such thing as preemptive retaliation?
Thank you for saying this.
I’m saddened by how stupid our society has become that so many have swallowed the idea that our government is this big, bloated, and inefficent thing. There is no data to support this at all. If anything, we have evidence of the opposite.
-
Our country has the 3rd largest population in the world and yet, relative to other industrial nations, provides relatively few services for its people. E.g., healthcare is still something mostly financed by corporations here.
-
We have some the safest food and water on the planet, and compared to most places on the planet, we are practically a utopia in terms of infectious disease control and prevention. (I wish the OP would drink tap water in a country with little or no public health instructure…like that libertarian paradise called Somalia…and then report back.)
-
We are taxed at a much lower rate than the vast majority of other countries.
-
We have the largest GDP than any other country.
So the logical question–the one that is never answered–is what is the basis for us deciding that our government is overweight? On any possible indicator I can think of, our government is not inefficient at all. So many of these quasi-libertarians are convinced that the government needs to be downsized, but I never see them pointing to any country that we should be mirroring.
Don’t fixate on the too big to fail thing. That’s a cliche used for effect. The reality implied is that it’s too big to fail or to not fail, depending on your perspective.
No mater how you look at it, it’s too big.
And to the dissonant dude, who’s post I unfortunately saw being quoted due to him being on my ignore list, I apologize for an error in fact. I mis-remembered the elDorado Canyon operation being tied to Lockerbie, as it was in fact retaliation for the Berlin disco bombing. Things get confused in the fog of war. My bad.
Nonetheless, same issue: Libya, terrorism, military action by POTUS. Still the same deal now as it was then. Same actors, same problems.
Sorry, but again, if you wish to trivialize an intelligent discussion with mere attempts at discrediting me personally guess what?
YOU GET TO STAY ON MY IGNORE LIST!!!
+1
That’s what she said.
So what? Irrelevant.
Again - nothing to do with the subject at hand
Who is “we.” Obviously not a small business owner.
That quite a few irrelevant opinions you got there face guy!! :smack:
Start an intelligent discussion then - this thread does not in any way qualify.
You seem to get confused in the fog of reality. Frequently, too.
He keeps overcorrecting for reality’s well-known liberal bias.
OK, I guess we’re done here then. Nobody thinks a government shutdown affecting the economic recovery is anything to be concerned about and no possible indication it might be a little too big.
Have a nice day.
Morons. :rolleyes:
If one person tells you you’re an idiot they may just not like you.
If several people tell you you’re an idiot it’s possible they’re all wrong and you’re right.
If everyone tells you you’re an idiot you should pay attention.
Just sayin’
Dude, your performance in this thread is falling short of expectations.
In order to be a real laughing stock on the board, you have to follow the checklist:
1.) Post an ill-informed OP (check)
2.) Have a uniform denunciation of such OP (check)
3.) Assert control of the thread, trying to stop people from criticizing the stupid OP (check)
4.) Declare victory (check)
5.) Call everyone morons (check)
6.) “Threaten” people with your ignore list (check)
7.) Retreat from the thread (check)
Oh, wait, you ticked every box. I suppose this thread has been an unqualified success, then.
Bye!
waves
Drive safe!
Call when you get work!
To answer the question in the OP: I don’t need any more evidence. That’s assuming you’re talking about the evidence that your brain is made of poo.
Oh please please let me be on your ignore list. I would be so disappointed if I failed to make the cut.
As someone who strongly favors smaller government, I can’t side with the OP and his crazy logic. As **Revtim **insinuated upthread, any good, modern society needs a working government in order to function. So, even in my ideal situation, where the government would be considerably smaller than it is now, it would be disasterous for the economy if the government just suddenly stopped functioning.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with the size of the government at all. The same statement would, I think, apply to any government, regardless of size. Even in an ideal libertarian state, with the government pared down to an absolute bare minimum, the shut down of the government would have a negative impact on the function of the economy. In the right circumstances, a disastrous impact.
I’m sorry, but why are you still being an idiot?
Even if the government was as tiny as it needed to be and so perfectfully efficient that it was equivalent to a perpetual motion machine, a government shutdown would fuck us up. Probably more, because it would be that much more valuable and irreplaceable, ya think?
If the government is no longer there to do business, the economy is hurt. Not just because people will go without salaries, but because the government provides important services. Likewise, if I rip your heart out of your chest, you’ll most assuredly die.
Maybe if you stop playing gotcha ya with political rhetoric, you’ll see how dumb your position is.